About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
of the same-sex marriage issue, and that could result in what would eventually be the roe v. wade of gay rights. >> we are back on a big story that will become an even bigger story when we move forward, and that's the question of marriage equality for gays and lesbians in the country. speaker gingrich, you oppose same-sex marriage. do you think the tide is turning? we know it's turning in terms of public opinion. what does it mean they are taking this on? >> the justices looked at the question, if you're an american citizen and you are legally married in iowa, what happens if you visit another state and you end up in the hospital? do you have any visitation rights? once this has begun to move, it is going -- it is so complicated that i think the court felt almost compelled as a national institution to look at it. >> and i think, lawrence, as i have talked to lawyers about this, what people need to understand is that there is the question of your ability to have benefits. this is not whether the defense of marriage act is completely thrown out. that is that question. and then prop 8 in ca
and roe versus wade. he reached out in lawrence versus texas and grutter v. bollinger. those who don't want them to reach out in this case do want them to reach out anytime it helps their cause. maybe they even reached out in allen's case. my point is the court shouldn't just make things up. but they are, to a large extent, a policymaking body. that is what they do. they take cases and they decide broader principles. here we have a very serious problem that justifies a little stretching, not in my opinion to ban racial preferences, and went to socioeconomic components. every other institution in american society has failed to come to grips with this problem. the university systematically misleads applicants over how it works. no major politician has had a case of affirmative action more than 20 years -- excuse me, not 20, but 16 years. we are going to have racial preferences for the next hundred years or more unless the supreme court does something to slow down. >> a nonpolitical ranch of a policymaking body. say it ain't so. [applause] >> comments? >> i would like to talk about what
all, reverse roe v. wade. the commerce clause was not part of that agenda. again, any story i tell and "the oath," the idea that an individual mandate was unconstitutional was invented out of thin air essentially fixed months before the law was passed. the individual mandate had been pioneered by the conservative heritage foundation and the late 80s. decades it had been discussed and no one had ever suggested it was unconstitutional. you might think. someone might've noticed this really unconstitutional. it is an example i think and i believe robert staines of the kind of political frenzy. a desire of the part of republicans to defeat the saw at any cost, any price and roberts said this is a diversion from what we need to do as conservatives. roberts did not suddenly last year discoveries and are moderate. he is not a moderate. he will not suddenly start siding with four liberals. but in this case, he preserved his plays and he preserved the courts place as a relatively neutral arbiter and expanded his own power and reputation and enormous lake, which he will use sooner rather than
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)